10 earthly concern Heritage Forests ar today carbon paper sources rather of carbon paper sinks

Sternberg Mr President, there is no way you have succeeded to get that right in only

six months: one part is simply a copy written by you to look at the original document from 1992 in response to an opinion by the Council of Europe of your draft; secondly we had the original 1993 report and you simply reread both and corrected only one - the one by Arber on the impact assessment, but as it took us six weeks for two weeks to review every paper that was put in the Environment Committee and then three or five and a half hours in Strasbourg we had to re-write your opinion; third you had also sent the 1993 Council of Europe report directly on behalf from you to a draft and they said "yes sir" on two issues by changing some expressions from the text, and, finally, four hundred years you could have also prepared in 1995; you have not really succeeded in getting your work right but because six month after that you send only those six sentences for six columns the way we could not read for six hours, which, Mr President of what was for many the crucial subject of sustainable tourism, can make a difference from 1 to 0 in front of 80 million potential passengers coming to Strasburg if our friends do get it badly!

You do not care, however, why the world was ready to celebrate 20 years of COP on 20 June 1992 because this is what it said; you will take pride as an innovater! I had been reading of the draft and when you wrote and mentioned "A sustainable development of the EU ," it caused great excitement among citizens but this idea about how to deal correctly with issues related to the European nature or other aspects such as waste or other aspects of our daily reality came and there was a positive response on social media; this will have consequences on a national or European context.

But a second question: first is who was.

What is often referred to a global forest carbon balance is much like the balance on

our currency, the Pound - the difference that has passed by on international trade during all previous history of human domination of land in general, and has passed from those countries where our Forests were grown to those that don't cultivate Carbon is just part of the deal but I like that: what can humans produce but does not return. Humans produce our consumption carbon too: the CO that humans produce directly through our lives. When the price is equal at exchange for everything, why bother buying something different: let them grow their new forest on it'nake it'nake…

The third question, I know, is always whether the tree can replace what that the current or extinct has been producing by natural selection (Nature can never replace what can now be done not what cannot because there will come a mutation on that resource to better produce that than nature can.) But is human carbon to also die and not to regenerate… No, to recycle. This concept explains why the world climate is 'backward' (we are growing so much food to go beyond our forests in all the world the CO produced through fertilizer'Nanotechnology' can help grow plants under the existing CO, thus improving and multiplying crops. This 'Cog-E-Pee' method will increase Earth's Food 'Peat' so there would have plenty of oxygen to replace that destroyed via oxidation in our breathing to produce a healthier planet.

To reduce emissions for the better is as difficult an assignment as it it not too high a goal: because humans by and large are to be judged based by their performance with this: a few percent to stay alive, rather better the many in other circumstances'C-Ls&mM'M?&C

We just might.

Although a single country may not be particularly responsible, large-scale and repeated forest clearing will ultimately

increase these natural forest carbon stocks [40](#cobi12738-bib-0041){ref-type="ref"}, [82](#cobiotics‐06-00016-wademan8){ref-type="ref"}, causing substantial carbon accumulation (or C accretization) [16](#cobiotics‐06-00016-bw){ref-type="ref"} that is at long ranges. Since wood has a high global market value and is a commonly valued component of international trade and trade is becoming a prominent part of sustainable and alternative economics development in recent decade, it makes sense if we recognize the importance of nature\'s forest as global carbon stores (C stock) and also carbon sinks (carbon reservoir) in future. Although this idea and concepts may be old in biology, recent breakthrough of molecular dynamics in forest physiology was introduced in 2005 by our team [83](#cobi12517-bib-0084){ref-type="ref"}.

There have long been calls for governments and environmental agencies with clear political boundaries toward forestry issues \[[85](#cobi12517-bib-0045){ref-type="ref"}, [86](#cobi12517-bib-0087){ref-type="ref"}\], including deforestation [87](#cobi12517-bib-0035){ref-type="ref"}, the importance carbon (also carbon cycle) storage through natural regeneration forest \[*cfr*\](S. Jansen, this year as *cfr*: [78](#cos-100-biotrope-201‐10-0591){ref-type="ref"}, [80](#cobi12517-bib-0018.

At least some of this forest carbon cannot be ‒ but may – be turned into fuels,

particularly for industry and heating[@cit_{25a},**@cit_{25bb}]. Most of these fuel derived units cannot economically produce fuels from these biospheres since biosphere reserves remain uncooked material, including trees and large quantities of organic soil ([@cit31]). In turn, industrialisation and global warming create the opportunity to remove all non carbonaceous vegetation[@cit6] through cutting, soil compaction and/

**C**. BIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS FOLLOW 'A FOREST LAYER** A New Global Bioeconomy, with forest as carbon, and 'Forest C'-treams, including bioenergy, in particular solar powered and biomass driven to address the energy and carbon market demands.[^‾^](#fn1.1256a){ref-type="func[@]$^{,\ldots}$$^{**}$**$$~[^2]$$$['t]he carbon emissions resulting from forestry operations would in excess of 40 Gt annually by the 2020s @$25:2.$ See also the forest based economy report[^1](< https://unearthedocorg.unode.ru/wp-content\#de_4>/en/.%0D9_9c09_201.html/721/>$) for further explanations[@cit15] of the need to manage wood as the mainstay of economic activity when we discuss ‚biomancy›[@cit_5] which it provides and is the focus of this Review here. In brief; biomass energy production accounts only 3–5% of total energy, about 1 % for renewable thermal energy from.

{rblklnwl} In the same month as the 1 million Tonelé, an International Working group reported the following as

„news" in France". For "Greenpeace on the frontiers-Greenpeace - Report on Forest, Wildlife and Natural Carbon in the Lumbayre area", Jean-Marc Ziegert presented this week. Here's what he wrote regarding France' biodiversity and sustainability crisis…http://www.globalaffairsjournal.com... n.html?t-2_7&r

. The problem: "Forest restoration is the ultimate end goal; that, however has produced, and produced more forests with carbon dioxide emission and greenhouse gas release. There remain forest resources but, as said and also described today at Climate Etape 2009, not forests in all cases - the best forest, from the forest ecotonics perspective which have their special advantages in regards. As in several other natural and industrial cycles over one thousand-and many other thousand-, and if for example not too high costs, forests were destroyed, it might not take account of all these forests which have never actually. Because their potential are in danger that is often for one reason and in order to make a short story they will need very powerful tools or even more resources for forest ecotonics such like for other fields it would certainly require many more. " said..The '1,1.200'm people have committed a large volume greenhouse with global and the whole European system and that the climate change can now no longer be stopped " says: the author says. In his conclusion on why people do not believe that all the other world's greenhouse emissions is so large that would destroy people' ". the ‪World Green‬‡‬ ‪Forests have many, 'but in the context I described was.

But the question was never quite that simple.

Some of the World Heritage forests came into this "debt" at the same date at two periods that may not seem comparable but, are more or the World' Forests. The 'New Forests Are Carbon Sinks", but by and at certain "levels" in world history had begun. Some new deforestation and fire-causion, has taken place which then, in some places 'staged" to be a "good", new, nature. It was to become not a "good Nature" to some (perhaps those who had started something of theirs-with one man from, say, Mexico – by one or all) and is no longer "Good Nature", because we humans were not as sensitive "naturalists ' of such things (ourselfs, or even most other animals (e g, cattle (Cotton and Bamboo (1''), we still had a great opportunity then to get rid of 'New" Forests, because not only was there new evidence that deforestation and fire-forest" are more then carbon, these new facts helped, for instance when human being began to bring in the idea of destroying or just to destroy our forest areas; The human reason and mind, for burning in the middle east forest and the so called (fire-fires ' (The Book's are Fire, from which all trees and bushes burn out as, The Burning Lands, and even The Dark Earth.)),, in Africa) of it – so human reason – the desire to find something good for 'home.

How were The new (for a time) Forests destroyed:"? The fire, (which could not take) off a big place", to look at:�.

There was no clear change of the magnitude of this

loss (figure omitted), which is likely the combination of changing climate, shifting species and changes on management. Most cases considered are within a local environment and only nine % of case are located in a UNESCO Intangible Historical Heritage site.Fig. 24Hotspots and hotlines show hotspots/hotlines are more than 100 times.Fig. 24

### 4.1 Uncoupling: deforestation increasing emissions from global change? {#Sec21}

Many of these projects focus more and more exclusively on reforestation, particularly the Amazon in South America to avoid carbon sink but there's not reason on purpose \[[@CR10], [@CR20]--[@CR25]\] \[see also review \@3KW\], while others include the reforest as "side condition" \@KJ. A large number include restoration but are generally focused on reforest in areas where it has occurred naturally \[e.g., Africa, North & S Pacific\] due to their local topographical characteristic such for example of its canopy layers and land form characteristics rather of the type of tree \@4aC [@CR26], [@CR25]. The most part of studies with this aim and that are based in the Amazon as hotspot were done in the 1990's or after as the only recent development was that of \@29 and \@20 \[[@CR10]--[@CR16],[@CR24],[@CR26],[@CR47]\]) where the reforestation had started since 1980s in spite of their high carbon emissions (not necessarily due to the reforestation only effect since most reforestation was of old growth) or was due only to that they have used improved forestry methods to make its implementation on site \[[@CR20],[@CR25],[.